How Can Homosexuality Be Wrong?

[MaxGrit]

Good discussion. It's not true that same sex marriage doesn't harm anyone.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Same sex marriage will be legal in all 50 states very soon and there is nothing you can do about it. It would be great if the GOP would spend their time and energy solving things people actually give a shit about. Keep calm and carry on.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Queers have killed 660,000 Americans by spreading AIDS while infecting two million others (nearly all people of color) who'll probably die of the disease, and they spread STD's at a rate anywhere from 4X to 15X that of any other American demographic. Oh those poor little innocent queers. They don't hurt anybody with their gross irresponsibility and self-indulgence. Give me a break! And while you're doing that, go pay a visit to the CDC. Guess which demographic in the US is spreading AIDS faster than any other...again? WHITE QUEERS. Real shocker, huh? NOT.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Same sex marriage will be legal in all 50 states very soon and there is nothing you can do about it. It would be great if the GOP would spend their time and energy solving things people actually give a shit about. Keep calm and carry on.

It's a bone they're throwing their religious nutjob base who seem to care about little else.

 

[PratchettFan]

It can't be wrong. Over eating is wrong, abusing drugs and alcohol is wrong, letting your dog poop on your neighbor's lawn is wrong. Homosexuality just is.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Isn't wrong or right so much as simply a natural variation in sexual behaviour.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Jewish condemnation of homosexual acts, like many other prohibitions was likely more about the Romans doing it, and being the occupiers of Israel 'anything Romans do we shouldn't.'

Reading something else earlier, skimmed a good article on A7 about homosexuality from the Jewish perspective. Bit convoluted but informative.

Homosexuality The Malady of Our Generation - Judaism - Arutz Sheva

 

[1751_Texan]

Good discussion. It's not true that same sex marriage doesn't harm anyone.

Not any more than opposite sex marriage does.

 

[martybegan]

Homosexuality is "wrong" from a basic biological perspective. The object of sex is to continue the species as a macro goal, and to continue your own DNA as a micro one. Sexual desire towards members of the opposite sex is designed to further both these goals. A lack of sexual desire towards a member of the opposite sex, regardless of what it is replaced with, decreases your chances of getting towards both of those goals. Replacing it with attraction to someone of the same sex is a genetic dead end.

This has nothing to do with a moral judgement, simply a biological one.

 

[PratchettFan]

Homosexuality is "wrong" from a basic biological perspective. The object of sex is to continue the species as a macro goal, and to continue your own DNA as a micro one. Sexual desire towards members of the opposite sex is designed to further both these goals. A lack of sexual desire towards a member of the opposite sex, regardless of what it is replaced with, decreases your chances of getting towards both of those goals. Replacing it with attraction to someone of the same sex is a genetic dead end.

This has nothing to do with a moral judgement, simply a biological one.

That is a theory with some validity. However, if we are going to theorize.... if a species is over populated and has no predators, then some biological mechanism to reduce the birth rate would be a survival trait. There are species where individuals will actually change sex when there are too many or too few animals. So from a purely biological view, not a moral one, homosexuality is a benefit to the species. Which means it is "right".

Regardless of the cause, sexual attraction is not a matter of choice. No one sits down and decides which sex they are going to be attracted to today. It is entirely biological, and therefore natural by definition.

 

[martybegan]

Homosexuality is "wrong" from a basic biological perspective. The object of sex is to continue the species as a macro goal, and to continue your own DNA as a micro one. Sexual desire towards members of the opposite sex is designed to further both these goals. A lack of sexual desire towards a member of the opposite sex, regardless of what it is replaced with, decreases your chances of getting towards both of those goals. Replacing it with attraction to someone of the same sex is a genetic dead end.

This has nothing to do with a moral judgement, simply a biological one.

That is a theory with some validity. However, if we are going to theorize.... if a species is over populated and has no predators, then some biological mechanism to reduce the birth rate would be a survival trait. There are species where individuals will actually change sex when there are too many or too few animals. So from a purely biological view, not a moral one, homosexuality is a benefit to the species. Which means it is "right".

Regardless of the cause, sexual attraction is not a matter of choice. No one sits down and decides which sex they are going to be attracted to today. It is entirely biological, and therefore natural by definition.

That is an explanation of the macro problem, but not of the micro, i.e. the propagation of ones own DNA. Also the changing of the sex of an animal is again to allow for more propagation of the species/the individual organisms own DNA.

Also for the macro concept to work, the organisms that have the homosexual tendency should also have other flaws that would make limiting their breeding beneficial to the species as a whole, thus their lack of breeding improves the genetics of the species as a whole.

 

[PratchettFan]

Homosexuality is "wrong" from a basic biological perspective. The object of sex is to continue the species as a macro goal, and to continue your own DNA as a micro one. Sexual desire towards members of the opposite sex is designed to further both these goals. A lack of sexual desire towards a member of the opposite sex, regardless of what it is replaced with, decreases your chances of getting towards both of those goals. Replacing it with attraction to someone of the same sex is a genetic dead end.

This has nothing to do with a moral judgement, simply a biological one.

That is a theory with some validity. However, if we are going to theorize.... if a species is over populated and has no predators, then some biological mechanism to reduce the birth rate would be a survival trait. There are species where individuals will actually change sex when there are too many or too few animals. So from a purely biological view, not a moral one, homosexuality is a benefit to the species. Which means it is "right".

Regardless of the cause, sexual attraction is not a matter of choice. No one sits down and decides which sex they are going to be attracted to today. It is entirely biological, and therefore natural by definition.

That is an explanation of the macro problem, but not of the micro, i.e. the propagation of ones own DNA. Also the changing of the sex of an animal is again to allow for more propagation of the species/the individual organisms own DNA.

Also for the macro concept to work, the organisms that have the homosexual tendency should also have other flaws that would make limiting their breeding beneficial to the species as a whole, thus their lack of breeding improves the genetics of the species as a whole.

If you are going to talk about procreation, then macro is all that matters. Whether you or I procreate makes no difference, so long as enough people do it to continue the species. If micro mattered, then every female would be attracted to every male, and vice versa.

Your suggestion about breeding does not hold up. If the population becomes so dense children are dying from starvation, then passing on genes becomes irrelevant. Further, homosexuality would be a trait handed down making the percentage drop until it simply died out entirely. That is clearly not the case.

 

[bodecea]

Homosexuality is "wrong" from a basic biological perspective. The object of sex is to continue the species as a macro goal, and to continue your own DNA as a micro one. Sexual desire towards members of the opposite sex is designed to further both these goals. A lack of sexual desire towards a member of the opposite sex, regardless of what it is replaced with, decreases your chances of getting towards both of those goals. Replacing it with attraction to someone of the same sex is a genetic dead end.

This has nothing to do with a moral judgement, simply a biological one.

That is a theory with some validity. However, if we are going to theorize.... if a species is over populated and has no predators, then some biological mechanism to reduce the birth rate would be a survival trait. There are species where individuals will actually change sex when there are too many or too few animals. So from a purely biological view, not a moral one, homosexuality is a benefit to the species. Which means it is "right".

Regardless of the cause, sexual attraction is not a matter of choice. No one sits down and decides which sex they are going to be attracted to today. It is entirely biological, and therefore natural by definition.

That is an explanation of the macro problem, but not of the micro, i.e. the propagation of ones own DNA. Also the changing of the sex of an animal is again to allow for more propagation of the species/the individual organisms own DNA.

Also for the macro concept to work, the organisms that have the homosexual tendency should also have other flaws that would make limiting their breeding beneficial to the species as a whole, thus their lack of breeding improves the genetics of the species as a whole.

However, homosexuals are capable of breeding, but do not have the desire to do so in the standard way.

 

[PratchettFan]

Homosexuality is "wrong" from a basic biological perspective. The object of sex is to continue the species as a macro goal, and to continue your own DNA as a micro one. Sexual desire towards members of the opposite sex is designed to further both these goals. A lack of sexual desire towards a member of the opposite sex, regardless of what it is replaced with, decreases your chances of getting towards both of those goals. Replacing it with attraction to someone of the same sex is a genetic dead end.

This has nothing to do with a moral judgement, simply a biological one.

That is a theory with some validity. However, if we are going to theorize.... if a species is over populated and has no predators, then some biological mechanism to reduce the birth rate would be a survival trait. There are species where individuals will actually change sex when there are too many or too few animals. So from a purely biological view, not a moral one, homosexuality is a benefit to the species. Which means it is "right".

Regardless of the cause, sexual attraction is not a matter of choice. No one sits down and decides which sex they are going to be attracted to today. It is entirely biological, and therefore natural by definition.

That is an explanation of the macro problem, but not of the micro, i.e. the propagation of ones own DNA. Also the changing of the sex of an animal is again to allow for more propagation of the species/the individual organisms own DNA.

Also for the macro concept to work, the organisms that have the homosexual tendency should also have other flaws that would make limiting their breeding beneficial to the species as a whole, thus their lack of breeding improves the genetics of the species as a whole.

However, homosexuals are capable of breeding, but do not have the desire to do so in the standard way.

Another good point. I think all of this is just theorizing, or even just hypothesizing. However, what is fact is that sexual attraction is biological and therefore neither right nor wrong. It just is.

 

[martybegan]

Homosexuality is "wrong" from a basic biological perspective. The object of sex is to continue the species as a macro goal, and to continue your own DNA as a micro one. Sexual desire towards members of the opposite sex is designed to further both these goals. A lack of sexual desire towards a member of the opposite sex, regardless of what it is replaced with, decreases your chances of getting towards both of those goals. Replacing it with attraction to someone of the same sex is a genetic dead end.

This has nothing to do with a moral judgement, simply a biological one.

That is a theory with some validity. However, if we are going to theorize.... if a species is over populated and has no predators, then some biological mechanism to reduce the birth rate would be a survival trait. There are species where individuals will actually change sex when there are too many or too few animals. So from a purely biological view, not a moral one, homosexuality is a benefit to the species. Which means it is "right".

Regardless of the cause, sexual attraction is not a matter of choice. No one sits down and decides which sex they are going to be attracted to today. It is entirely biological, and therefore natural by definition.

That is an explanation of the macro problem, but not of the micro, i.e. the propagation of ones own DNA. Also the changing of the sex of an animal is again to allow for more propagation of the species/the individual organisms own DNA.

Also for the macro concept to work, the organisms that have the homosexual tendency should also have other flaws that would make limiting their breeding beneficial to the species as a whole, thus their lack of breeding improves the genetics of the species as a whole.

If you are going to talk about procreation, then macro is all that matters. Whether you or I procreate makes no difference, so long as enough people do it to continue the species. If micro mattered, then every female would be attracted to every male, and vice versa.

Your suggestion about breeding does not hold up. If the population becomes so dense children are dying from starvation, then passing on genes becomes irrelevant. Further, homosexuality would be a trait handed down making the percentage drop until it simply died out entirely. That is clearly not the case.

The micro is what creates the macro. You forget that the rest of the species lack our awareness, and thus any concept of the macro.

Your point is homosexuality is a programmed limiter to a species population growth, my response is that if natural selection is true, the limiter must be tied to something else, something not as desirable in a population under some outside stress.

Also, if homosexuality has a genetic component, it could be a spontaneous common mutation is a genetic code, something that doesn't have to be passed down.

Or it can be nurture instead, rendering the genetic aspect of this conversation moot, but still making it something of a biological liability in general.

 

[martybegan]

Homosexuality is "wrong" from a basic biological perspective. The object of sex is to continue the species as a macro goal, and to continue your own DNA as a micro one. Sexual desire towards members of the opposite sex is designed to further both these goals. A lack of sexual desire towards a member of the opposite sex, regardless of what it is replaced with, decreases your chances of getting towards both of those goals. Replacing it with attraction to someone of the same sex is a genetic dead end.

This has nothing to do with a moral judgement, simply a biological one.

That is a theory with some validity. However, if we are going to theorize.... if a species is over populated and has no predators, then some biological mechanism to reduce the birth rate would be a survival trait. There are species where individuals will actually change sex when there are too many or too few animals. So from a purely biological view, not a moral one, homosexuality is a benefit to the species. Which means it is "right".

Regardless of the cause, sexual attraction is not a matter of choice. No one sits down and decides which sex they are going to be attracted to today. It is entirely biological, and therefore natural by definition.

That is an explanation of the macro problem, but not of the micro, i.e. the propagation of ones own DNA. Also the changing of the sex of an animal is again to allow for more propagation of the species/the individual organisms own DNA.

Also for the macro concept to work, the organisms that have the homosexual tendency should also have other flaws that would make limiting their breeding beneficial to the species as a whole, thus their lack of breeding improves the genetics of the species as a whole.

However, homosexuals are capable of breeding, but do not have the desire to do so in the standard way.

They have the ability, but without the desire they have less of a chance of acting on it, and less of a chance of continuing DNA. from a biological point you have to ignore our sentience and technology, which can find ways around the problem (surrogates, artificial insemination, and the current research on using stem cells in place of ova/sperm)

As a side note, I am near-sighted. Biologically this is "wrong" as well, and only overcome by technology. Without technology i would less likely to pass on my genetic code due to this.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Homosexuality is "wrong" from a basic biological perspective. The object of sex is to continue the species as a macro goal, and to continue your own DNA as a micro one. Sexual desire towards members of the opposite sex is designed to further both these goals. A lack of sexual desire towards a member of the opposite sex, regardless of what it is replaced with, decreases your chances of getting towards both of those goals. Replacing it with attraction to someone of the same sex is a genetic dead end.

This has nothing to do with a moral judgement, simply a biological one.

And yet homosexuality is biological.

 

[martybegan]

Homosexuality is "wrong" from a basic biological perspective. The object of sex is to continue the species as a macro goal, and to continue your own DNA as a micro one. Sexual desire towards members of the opposite sex is designed to further both these goals. A lack of sexual desire towards a member of the opposite sex, regardless of what it is replaced with, decreases your chances of getting towards both of those goals. Replacing it with attraction to someone of the same sex is a genetic dead end.

This has nothing to do with a moral judgement, simply a biological one.

And yet homosexuality is biological.

So is near-sightedness, heart disease, cancer, and dwarfism, but each one, without the technology we have today, is "wrong" in the sense that is inhibits ones ability to pass on ones genetics to another generation.

Maybe wrong is a strong word, sub-optimal" is better.

 

[PratchettFan]

Homosexuality is "wrong" from a basic biological perspective. The object of sex is to continue the species as a macro goal, and to continue your own DNA as a micro one. Sexual desire towards members of the opposite sex is designed to further both these goals. A lack of sexual desire towards a member of the opposite sex, regardless of what it is replaced with, decreases your chances of getting towards both of those goals. Replacing it with attraction to someone of the same sex is a genetic dead end.

This has nothing to do with a moral judgement, simply a biological one.

That is a theory with some validity. However, if we are going to theorize.... if a species is over populated and has no predators, then some biological mechanism to reduce the birth rate would be a survival trait. There are species where individuals will actually change sex when there are too many or too few animals. So from a purely biological view, not a moral one, homosexuality is a benefit to the species. Which means it is "right".

Regardless of the cause, sexual attraction is not a matter of choice. No one sits down and decides which sex they are going to be attracted to today. It is entirely biological, and therefore natural by definition.

That is an explanation of the macro problem, but not of the micro, i.e. the propagation of ones own DNA. Also the changing of the sex of an animal is again to allow for more propagation of the species/the individual organisms own DNA.

Also for the macro concept to work, the organisms that have the homosexual tendency should also have other flaws that would make limiting their breeding beneficial to the species as a whole, thus their lack of breeding improves the genetics of the species as a whole.

If you are going to talk about procreation, then macro is all that matters. Whether you or I procreate makes no difference, so long as enough people do it to continue the species. If micro mattered, then every female would be attracted to every male, and vice versa.

Your suggestion about breeding does not hold up. If the population becomes so dense children are dying from starvation, then passing on genes becomes irrelevant. Further, homosexuality would be a trait handed down making the percentage drop until it simply died out entirely. That is clearly not the case.

The micro is what creates the macro. You forget that the rest of the species lack our awareness, and thus any concept of the macro.

Your point is homosexuality is a programmed limiter to a species population growth, my response is that if natural selection is true, the limiter must be tied to something else, something not as desirable in a population under some outside stress.

Also, if homosexuality has a genetic component, it could be a spontaneous common mutation is a genetic code, something that doesn't have to be passed down.

Or it can be nurture instead, rendering the genetic aspect of this conversation moot, but still making it something of a biological liability in general.

No, my point is that there are multiple possible explanations and we have no idea which, if any, are correct. But that it is natural really should not be up for debate, at least from a biological point of view.

 

[martybegan]

Homosexuality is "wrong" from a basic biological perspective. The object of sex is to continue the species as a macro goal, and to continue your own DNA as a micro one. Sexual desire towards members of the opposite sex is designed to further both these goals. A lack of sexual desire towards a member of the opposite sex, regardless of what it is replaced with, decreases your chances of getting towards both of those goals. Replacing it with attraction to someone of the same sex is a genetic dead end.

This has nothing to do with a moral judgement, simply a biological one.

That is a theory with some validity. However, if we are going to theorize.... if a species is over populated and has no predators, then some biological mechanism to reduce the birth rate would be a survival trait. There are species where individuals will actually change sex when there are too many or too few animals. So from a purely biological view, not a moral one, homosexuality is a benefit to the species. Which means it is "right".

Regardless of the cause, sexual attraction is not a matter of choice. No one sits down and decides which sex they are going to be attracted to today. It is entirely biological, and therefore natural by definition.

That is an explanation of the macro problem, but not of the micro, i.e. the propagation of ones own DNA. Also the changing of the sex of an animal is again to allow for more propagation of the species/the individual organisms own DNA.

Also for the macro concept to work, the organisms that have the homosexual tendency should also have other flaws that would make limiting their breeding beneficial to the species as a whole, thus their lack of breeding improves the genetics of the species as a whole.

If you are going to talk about procreation, then macro is all that matters. Whether you or I procreate makes no difference, so long as enough people do it to continue the species. If micro mattered, then every female would be attracted to every male, and vice versa.

Your suggestion about breeding does not hold up. If the population becomes so dense children are dying from starvation, then passing on genes becomes irrelevant. Further, homosexuality would be a trait handed down making the percentage drop until it simply died out entirely. That is clearly not the case.

The micro is what creates the macro. You forget that the rest of the species lack our awareness, and thus any concept of the macro.

Your point is homosexuality is a programmed limiter to a species population growth, my response is that if natural selection is true, the limiter must be tied to something else, something not as desirable in a population under some outside stress.

Also, if homosexuality has a genetic component, it could be a spontaneous common mutation is a genetic code, something that doesn't have to be passed down.

Or it can be nurture instead, rendering the genetic aspect of this conversation moot, but still making it something of a biological liability in general.

No, my point is that there are multiple possible explanations and we have no idea which, if any, are correct. But that it is natural really should not be up for debate, at least from a biological point of view.

Why not? If we are discussing purely biological concepts, without a moral component, why is there such a need to consider homosexuality "Right"? Again, my near-sightedness is wrong biologically, as was my social awkwardness growing up, when it comes to the cold hard logic of species and DNA propagation.

If this is a concern over giving people an in to go after homosexuality from a moral standpoint, I have news for you, telling them its biologically "right" even if that was the case, isn't going to sway them.